A Question for Catholics

[tall73]

Yes, but their statement is that there is nothing in scripture that says so. Which is not true. They disagree over weather it means biological relatives or cousin, which the word allows for, but does not state out right. To demand that it means cousin because you want to prove a doctrine and keep a teaching in not honest or fair use of the information. if it can mean both then you have to allow the possibility of the other meaning.

it is pretty clear that he is not talking about his disciple, but his family, which means he had relatives.

Correct, the disciples are listed separately in the John account.

And also in John 7 we again have the brothers called that by John:

John 7:3 (NKJV)
3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Correct, the disciples are listed separately here.

And also in John 7 we again have the brothers called that by John:

John 7:3 (NKJV)
3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

the question here is weather they are biological or step brothers


In addition, I was thinking , There is a place where Jesus is referred to as the one and only son. is in his relationship to the Father. "For God so loved the world that he gave His only son" some translations "one and only" that is not the phrase that is used when it refers to him as Mary's son. he was the proto type, the first born, meaning there were others.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I will ask the question again.

1. What difference does it make if Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Why is this even an issue? Why does it matter?

2. what is the purpose behind this doctrine is. What is the Goal?

3. Is this simply a matter of historical accuracy?

4. Is there some Theological implication that I am missing?

5. Is there some Spiritual Shift that occurs when married people who are following God order have sex?

6. Is there some damnation that occurs.

7. It seem like an unnecessary teaching that just make you a target.

8. Or is it some kind of pseudo authority power trip. It is that way because we said so.

9. What am I missing?

 

[jas3]

I am arguing that the NT does not have enough information to say definitively, because I agree the two key terms can be used in a variety of ways--though the ways you are arguing forare the exceptions, not the rule.

I may have been reading more into your argument than was actually there. I agree that the NT taken in isolation doesn't have enough information to say definitively which interpretation is correct.

I am also noting that it is really only the later tradition that would make the view of perpetual virginity "plausible", because that is where it is spelled out, and by a number of promoters.

Here I can't agree. There are various other passages, which have already been brought up in this thread, that point to Mary not having had any other biological children.

And it is primarily on the basis of later tradition. But that later tradition does not agree in the particulars of the actual history. They only agree on the end-point, and have different ways of getting there.

If two father promote two views, one of children from a prior marriage, and another that of cousins, that is not a unified history that all have passed down, straight from the apostles.

The gospel accounts also have disagreement in some of the particulars, but that doesn't invalidate them, nor does it mean they aren't apostolic in origin (either directly by authorship or indirectly by being told to the author).

For instance, Bonosus, a bishop, was brought before a regional council, which deferred on the question to other leaders, and eventually the pope.

Interesting, thanks for pointing this out.

 

[prodromos]

not convinced that is the case. he had brothers & sister Matthew 13:55&56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, Gal 1:19, Act 1:14, John 12:46-40
Matthew 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus

knew is the another word for sex. she did not have sex until after him she had give birth to Jesus.

So the Catholic Church blatantly contradicts the scripture.

"The students worked quietly UNTIL the teacher returned."

Does the above state anything about what happened after the teacher returned? Does it imply that the classroom erupted into pandemonium once the teacher walked in?

 

[tall73]

I may have been reading more into your argument than was actually there. I agree that the NT taken in isolation doesn't have enough information to say definitively which interpretation is correct.

Fair enough

tall73 said:​

I am also noting that it is really only the later tradition that would make the view of perpetual virginity "plausible", because that is where it is spelled out, and by a number of promoters.​

Here I can't agree. There are various other passages, which have already been brought up in this thread, that point to Mary not having had any other biological children.

Even if you proved she did not have other biological children, that wouldn't prove virginity. Joseph and Mary could still have had relations without it producing children.

Perpetual virginity for Mary is simply not stated in the NT. It is stated in writings in the second century, etc. so we ought to look to those if evaluating the evidence.

The gospel accounts also have disagreement in some of the particulars, but that doesn't invalidate them, nor does it mean they aren't apostolic in origin (either directly by authorship or indirectly by being told to the author).

Differences in particulars within similar narratives is a bit different than two different origin stories for people, which would be mutually exclusive.

As to apostolic in origin, I have already noted that the early date, and geographic spread suggests that the early quotes on the topic probably go back a ways. But the fact that they differ means they don't preserve a perfect history passed down.

 

[Valletta]

New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until (up to the point) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

In other words, she was not a virgin after She gave birth, because then Joseph had sex with her.

Not only has the Greek meaning been provided to you, but you have been provided a number of examples from the Bible with the same grammatical structure that demonstrate that the meaning of "until" ends at the subject time. In the examples provided an interpretation such as yours was obviously not true. Even someone who doesn't have an idea of the Koine Greek meaning can see the obvious error in your logic.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Not only has the Greek meaning been provided to you, but you have been provided a number of examples from the Bible with the same grammatical structure that demonstrate that the meaning of "until" ends at the subject time. In the examples provided an interpretation such as yours was obviously not true. Even someone who doesn't have an idea of the Koine Greek meaning can see the obvious error in your logic.

no your interpretation and explanation has been given and there is no error. the subject of the text is Joseph patience and how long he waited to have sex with Mary, when waited UNTIL the baby was born. the meaning is plain. She was not a Virgin after she had the baby.

 

[Valletta]

I will ask the question again.

1. What difference does it make if Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Why is this even an issue? Why does it matter?

2. what is the purpose behind this doctrine is. What is the Goal?

3. Is this simply a matter of historical accuracy?

4. Is there some Theological implication that I am missing?

5. Is there some Spiritual Shift that occurs when married people who are following God order have sex?

6. Is there some damnation that occurs.

7. It seem like an unnecessary teaching that just make you a target.

8. Or is it some kind of pseudo authority power trip. It is that way because we said so.

9. What am I missing?

Perhaps it was lost in the cleanup, I believe it was John 14:6 that was quoted to you:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Truth is emphasized in the Word of God: Elsewhere in the Bible it says: "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 There is no mysterious "goal" in Catholic Church doctrine other than the truth. As to the theological role of Mary in salvation history, Mary's consecration to God is reflected in her perpetual virginity. It is part of who she is.
The Catholic Church was and is not concerned about becoming a "target" when declaring dogma. Just like various other Christians and Christian religions, the Catholics and the Church seek and promote the truth as they see it. The Catholic Church accepts and believes the entire Word of God, not just the 73 books that the Catholic Church chose and determined was canon in the late 300s. When the pope, in consultation with the bishops, officially declared this particular dogma in the 500s, he had no way of seeing into the future. The Catholic Church did not know that in the 1300s William of Ockham and Marsilius of Padua, who followed an Arab theologian who taught the Kuran was the authority for the Muslim religion, would promote the concept of ceding all Church authority over to the Bible. While realizing there would always be opposition to Christ's Church, the pope and the bishops had no way of knowing that thousands of Bible-only religions would spring up and gain such popularity, or that the translation of the Bible into English or other languages would so obscure the meaning of various Biblical words and idioms for some non-Catholic Christians. No, making themselves a target was not their purpose by any means. It was not a "power trip," it was their duty to preach and defend God's revealed truths..

 

[Adventist Dissident]

"The students worked quietly UNTIL the teacher returned."

Does the above state anything about what happened after the teacher returned? Does it imply that the classroom erupted into pandemonium once the teacher walked in?

your example is not up for discussion, the text of Matthew is ....

but kept her a virgin until (up to the point) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

the subject is how long did Joseph wait to have sex. he waited up to the point She Gave BIRTH to Jesus.

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

 

[Valletta]

your example is not up for discussion, the text of Matthew is ....

but kept her a virgin until (up to the point) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

the subject is how long did Joseph wait to have sex. he waited up to the point She Gave BIRTH to Jesus.

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

Both the meaning of the Koine Greek word and numerous examples have been given to you. If you wish to violate the Koine Greek rules of language and grammar that is up to you. But tell me, what difference does it matter to your salvation? Why is it so important to you to try and prove Catholics wrong? There are thousands of Christian denominations that you disagree with on various topics. Why is attacking and trying to refute the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity. Why does it so bother you?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If you are going to demand people accept a view like the perpetual virginity of Mary you must have a clear undisputed text to back it up. you do not have that. you have a text that literally says Josephs waited to have sex with her UNTIL the baby was born. and you are saying that it is not talking about having sex. What. and you want to condem people for not accepting that view????

 

[David Lamb]

"The students worked quietly UNTIL the teacher returned."

Does the above state anything about what happened after the teacher returned? Does it imply that the classroom erupted into pandemonium once the teacher walked in?

I think a better example would be: "The students did not do any work UNTIL the teacher returned." That matches better with Joseph not having sex with Mary UNTIL Jesus had been born, and implies that they DID work when the teacher returned.

 

[Valletta]

I think a better example would be: "The students did not do any work UNTIL the teacher returned." That matches better with Joseph not having sex with Mary UNTIL Jesus had been born, and implies that they DID work when the teacher returned.

This is not rocket science. The point which so many do not to want to accept is that the Koine Greek word for "until" says nothing about what happens after the subject event. The previous example and the sentence "Michal had no children until the day of her death" are examples that show the reality, the very absurdity of assuming it must. In summary, what happens after the Koine Greek "until" is unknown. It might be one way, it might be the opposite. We all can give examples that in English may imply one thing or another, but the Koine Greek "until" means no conclusion as to what happens after "until" should be made. The sentence proves nothing, for or against, Mary's perpetual virginity. For that we must look elsewhere in the Word of God.

 

[David Lamb]

This is not rocket science. The point which so many do not to want to accept is that the Koine Greek word for "until" says nothing about what happens after the subject event. The previous example and the sentence "Michal had no children until the day of her death" are examples that show the reality, the very absurdity of assuming it must. In summary, what happens after the Koine Greek "until" is unknown. It might be one way, it might be the opposite. We all can give examples that in English may imply one thing or another, but the Koine Greek "until" means no conclusion as to what happens after "until" should be made. The sentence proves nothing, for or against, Mary's perpetual virginity. For that we must look elsewhere in the Word of God.

You keep bringing up Michal. But the verse comes from the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew:

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” (2Sa 6:23 NKJV)

The word translated "to the day" there is the Hebrew יום yowm, which I am told means "day" or "time". So it doesn't allow for the possibility of somebody reading the verse and imagining it could mean that she had children after death.

In Matthew 1:25, the Greek word ἕως heos means "unto" or "until". We can look at other verses in the New Testament that use the same word. Here are just 2 examples:

“When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” (Mt 2:9 NKJV)

The star moved, and the wise men followed it from Bethlehem to the place in Bethlehem where Jesus was. There it stopped.

“When we had come to the end of those days, we departed and went on our way; and they all accompanied us, with wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed.” (Ac 21:5 NKJV)

The people followed Paul and his companions but stopped doing so once they were out of the city.

In both those examples (and there are many more I could have quoted) something is mentioned which happened until a certain point, then stopped. Similarly in Matthew 1:25. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

 

[prodromos]

It is clear that the implication is he did not wait after that.

Only according to modern sex-soaked Western culture.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

No, that just is not so. The verse in Genesis about crushing head and heel says:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."” (Ge 3:15 NKJV)

The seed of the woman is male, so unless you believe that Mary was a man in disguise, it cannot refer to her. The verse says, "He shall bruise your head." This is a reference to Jesus Christ.

You are relying on a translation. If you wish to argue your point, you must get to the original text from which the translation comes. Some texts say “she”, some say “he”

What is clear is the enmity is between Satan and the Woman. Satan hates Mary, really hates her. She is a creature like him, but she has more beauty due to the grace of God than he ever had, and he can’t stand it. He would do anything to distract attention from Mary and how beautiful she is. Instead of is contemplating her as the mother of God, he wants us to treat her as a throw away “candy wrapper” that the savior came in, but is of no consequence.

Psalm 44 of the Douay Rhiems translation gives the perfect picture. I believe it is Psalm 45 in other translations.

7- Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness. 8 Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 9 Myrrh and stacte and cassia perfume thy garments, from the ivory houses: out of which 10 The daughters of kings have delighted thee in thy glory. The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety.

11 Hearken, O daughter, and see, and incline thy ear: and forget thy people and thy father's house. 12 And the king shall greatly desire thy beauty; for he is the Lord thy God, and him they shall adore. 13 And the daughters of Tyre with gifts, yea, all the rich among the people, shall entreat thy countenance. 14 All the glory of the king's daughter is within in golden borders, 15 Clothed round about with varieties. After her shall virgins be brought to the king: her neighbours shall be brought to thee.

16 They shall be brought with gladness and rejoicing: they shall be brought into the temple of the king. 17 Instead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the earth. 18 They shall remember thy name throughout all generations. Therefore shall people praise thee for ever; yea, for ever and ever.



This is a description of the throne of God. Several things are worth noting. God thy God has anointed someone with the oil of gladness above his fellows and a queen stands at his right hand. That refers to Jesus and the queen is Mary

In verse 12, she is described as being with great beauty, but it is God they shall adore even when the people entreat Mary’s countenance
After her, virgins are brought to the king, we see that in Catholic nuns

The Psalm concludes by saying they shall remember thy name throughout all generations. This signifies that it is a single person and not to be considered the whole church. People will praise her forever and ever

An idol is the work of human hands formed to be worshipped as God. That is sin of the first commandment
Mary is the work of God’s hands at His word, by His command. A similar situation occurred when God told Moses to form a image of a serpent to which the people would look to save themselves from death
As Catholics, we entreat Mary’s countenance all the while we are adoring God for His great work
This Psalm describes it perfectly
In Luke’s Gospel Mary says all generations will call me blessed. It can be considered to refer back to this Psalm.


You can disagree, and most likely you will, but what you cannot say is that Catholic understanding and honor of Mary is unbiblical, because it’s all written out.
The best that you can do is say that Catholic theology does not agree with YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

A simple question once asked by a demon, but is worth contemplating. “Jesus I know, Paul I know, but who are you?” You have to come to that answer on your own

As for me, when I realized that I wanted God to follow me, my mouth was stopped, I repented and am following the Apostolic faith in all humility. Not my will, but God’s will be done

I know God loves you because He loves all His creatures and His love never fails. Just think about His love. Mary is the work of His hands, ought we to speak against her in any way?

 

[tall73]

You keep bringing up Michal. But the verse comes from the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew:

The LXX uses the same word in Greek.

2Sa 6:23 καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν.​

 

[tall73]

In both those examples (and there are many more I could have quoted) something is mentioned which happened until a certain point, then stopped. Similarly in Matthew 1:25. Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Yes, there are many of those. But sometimes it is just used to measure extent of time.

Matthew 11:23 (NKJV) 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Within the account the point was that:

A. She was found with child before they came together.

B. He did not know her prior to the birth.

Hence, it is emphasizing the miraculous nature of the virgin birth.

Knowing her after is not required by the meaning of the word. And the point of the statement was not to discuss their sex life after the birth. For that matter, couples rarely resume sex right after the birth of a new child anyway. The point was no sex happened until the key point of birth, to show it was of God.

Having said that, consummating a marriage could also be in view. They were betrothed at the time. And knowing her would be the beginning of the marriage.

God had said to not fear to take Mary as his wife.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Only according to modern sex-soaked Western culture.

according to the text. Sex has always been part of this world, you wouldn't be here without it. So don't knock it. Rome was worse in regards to sex. The had brothels, temples of prostitution, and sexual paraphernalia that rivals anything we have today. They made a religion out of sex so saying we are sex obsessed is not really a good argument.